Worley Parsons to build 34 250-megawatt power stations

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Just saying what you have just said doesn't make anything so. Industry and government agree that solar thermal will help better insulate electricity price rises from fossil fuel price rises, regardless of my view or yours. WorleyParsons also hold this view.

Apply that to what you say. All you have reported is the intention of a company. Ground has not been broken for such a large capacity yet, and motive behind such announcements are usually things like.... share prices.

Not at all, its an example of very basic concepts, you just don't accept. The projections are big for solar thermal energy and although we are still at an early growth phase, the growth projections are high, warts and all. The recent announcement by WorleyParsons and other players reflects this..

You've read a lot of hype, and you refuse to account into the equation any problems.

It ignores no such fact and its clear everything you say does not change what's being implemented. So you can keep coming up with doubting views that don't mean much in the face of what's happening. All technologies have issues and are yet still successfully deployed and utilised. WorleyParsons clearly think solar thermal energy will play a very significant role in Australia with the right legislative framework and that framework is being provided.

"What's happening"? You mean someone made an announcment that they intend to build lots of solar plants, but show no signs of actually building them, and you claim to not ignore anything?

Of course, but at the end of the day the impact of rising energy prices is expected to by far outstrip other rising commodity prices and in any event as already explained, life cycle costing can factor in replacement and repair costs in advance. There will be no carbon tax on commodities, but there will be on energy production notwithstanding the effects of energy prices on all other industries. Raw energy production costs is going to be the biggest issue in terms of rising fossil prices. Solar thermal energy along with other renewable energy technologies, will be far better insulated from these price rises than fossil fuel generated energy. So your point lacks validity. The views of government and industry are that solar thermal energy has a significant role to play to help meet renewable energy targets. WorleyParsons also hold this view.

Other than the fact that in your world, such solar plants have large energy storage, which require gas supply, which last time I checked is increasing in price, owing to increased demand worldwide.

Also, you once again ignore the fact that anything we buy has an energy cost, which translates to an increase in cost as fossil fuels increase in cost. Therefore, the huge amount of material per kw that is required to build and maintain a large solar plant will incur large material costs.

Solar plants in the real world are not immune from such sociatal influences.

Of course but that applies across all industries. Thus a mute point.

If it applies to all industries, it is anything but mute, and solar will not be immune. That's the point.

But also, this talk of "projections" holds a limited scope of accuracy. No-one knows for sure whether fossil fuels will increase as projected. Demand could well level out worldwide, or even dip, and capacity could increase, so all of these announcements seem to be based upon a single hypothesis. The time scales in question are far greater than your average economist would like to commit to a policy, given the type and scale of investment we are talking about.

Same applies to fossil fuel plants. A mute point anyway as at the end of the day, government and industry project solar thermal to be cheaper than coal between 2010 and 2020 period and in some situations solar thermal is already cheaper than fossil fuel power.

See comment above. Its not a mute point just because someone is saying something you want to hear.

There is no doom. It's a bright future for solar thermal energy that is expected to offer a very significant contribution to the renewable energy mix to meet 2020 / 20% renewable energy mandates, just that you cant accept that. There is little denying that being the likely reality, if the 2020 / 20% renewable mandate means anything.

Just incase you didn't pick up on me saying it many time before:
I'm not against solar thermal technology. I hope it expands as much as possible.

I'm just saying that you are sweeping under the carpet, any problem.

I have heard your message and I have shown that in spite of your view point, solar thermal energy is going forward strongly warts and all. The prevailing view is that its overall benefits clearly and significantly outweigh any perceived issues, such as those you might hold. WorleyParsons also hold this view.

Show some evidence that you've really taken any notice of the issues I've raised. The prevailing view is that it is expensive. Are WorleyParsons going to say otherwise? Of course they are, and we know why - They have a vested interest in it being built.

The technical issues are not ignored just as with any other technology, however the benefits by far outweigh them. That's why solar thermal technology is growing rapidly. It's a price issue not a technical issue. The technology exists and is competitive and the 2020 mandate will see its accelerated development.

You have ignored every issue I've raised. Again, just saying you "ackowledge" something doesn't make that issue go away, or somehow become mute.

I've noted what you have said and yes I repeat, what you have said will not change the future direction of solar thermal energy. Issues you have raised are well known by developers of the technology and still they are rolling the technology out because its benefits by far outweigh such issues.

Its not about "changing the future", its about the picture you paint being wrong. The issues I've raised are indeed well known to developers, but clearly you still ignore them. We still don't have 20% solar, and we are unlikely to in our lifetime. Your 20% renewable represents are small proportion of the overall energy production of a country. Wind will still be a major player in this field in the medium to long term, and both wind and solar will probably only be required to have a capacity of 20%, not what is actually supplied to the grid.

No need to take offence, as it's you that seems completely wrong. I understand your points well. You are making noises about the drawbacks of solar thermal energy, but have trouble accepting the fact that despite its own unique set of circumstances, it is being embraced and developed now that the playing field is being levelled.

Still waiting for any evidence of you actually understanding what I've said.

I'm not in the business of addressing repeatedly limitations you might perceive. Every technology has limitations. That does not stop their successful implementation. Solar thermal energy is no different. Its being adopted despite such perceptions because its benefits by far override such issues.

Again, I'll say it:
I am not against this technology.
It is the technology's limitations that will limit its market penetration. So why are you so relectant to discuss it? You have not addressed the issues I've raised.

When you say "Every technology has limitations. That does not stop their successful implementation. Solar thermal energy is no different", you are quite correct, so why you're relectance to discuss them? Just saying "Its got a great future" etc, is a sweeping statement, and does nothing to address the issue.

Of course, but that's not going to stop solar thermal energy from being a significant player in the renewable energy field. Not at all. Thus it's pointless to keep going on about them.

So if they find that all the locations with the best solar resources are also the windiest, or have insufficient water in the area, or would cost too much to put in the infrastructure, who will you blame? Or will they build them anyway and to hell with the cost?

If the environmental impact on the locations cited are significant, would you care? I've asked before, and you've not said, which is worrying. You seem to not care that the locations may have fragile habitats.

WorleyParsons have made an announcement that they intend to oversee the development of up to 34 solar thermal power stations in Australia. It's clear Australia is well suited to solar thermal energy and WorleyParsons hold a similar view. Its clear that based on the 34 solar thermal power plant projection by 2020, WorleyParsons believe solar thermal energy can make a significant contribution to Australia's energy mix. It's evident you don't think so. I will hold a different view. I agree with the view of WorleyParsons. I think that with the Australian 2020 mandate for 20% renewable energy, there are few choices except wind and solar to meet that mandate. Solar thermal is a likely candidate to be a very significant player in that process and I don't see the issues you have raised, as having any significant impact on the uptake of solar thermal energy technology, along the lines of what WorleyParsons has suggested.

See my comment above re shares.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Apply that to what you say. All you have reported is the intention of a company. Ground has not been broken for such a large capacity yet, and motive behind such announcements are usually.... share prices.

More unsubstantiated generalisations. Yes I have reported on the intent of WorleyParsons to build solar thermal power stations in Australia and I agree with them.

Originally Posted by Wobs

You've read a lot of hype, and you refuse to account into the equation any problems.

There is nothing to account for. Solar thermal power stations are being built around the world despite any perceived problems, as with many successfull technologies. I think what I have read offers more credibility, than what I have heard from your own arguments that seem to offer very little substance.

Originally Posted by Wobs

"What's happening"? You mean someone made an announcment that they intend to build lots of solar plants, but show no signs of actually building them, and you claim to not ignore anything?

Take a look around the world and you will see what's happening. Be blind and in denial if you choose, up to you. Yes correct, WorleyParsons Australia's largest engineering services company, that has an international reputation, including involvement in development of other power stations ( coal, gas, and nuclear ) has made an announcement. Well done for spotting that, yet somehow you expect me to think you have more credibility than them and you haven't even put up a convincing argument. Far from it in fact. I think I know whom I would prefer to believe and who's reasoning is more credible.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Other than the fact that in your world, such solar plants have large energy storage, which require gas supply, which last time I checked is increasing in price, owing to increased demand worldwide.

I suspect someone with even basic reasoning ability can see that the more gas or fossil fuels you use when gas and fossil fuel prices are rising, the more it's going to cost you. ABC, 123. 100% fossil fuel sourced power plants are at far more risk than renewable energy plants that only rely on a portion of their energy from fossil fuels. WorleyParsons, I and others clearly appreciated this, but it's evident you don't.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Also, you once again ignore the fact that anything we buy has an energy cost, which translates to an increase in cost as fossil fuels increase in cost. Therefore, the huge amount of material per kw that is required to build and maintain a large solar plant will incur large material costs.

Once again you fail to realise that it's not what I think that matters. You just keep repeating your same old flawed arguments. It's what's happening. What's happening and the reasoning behind it, contradicts everything you say. You don't seem to understand that in terms of rising fossil fuel prices, whatever it's going to cost renewable energy production like solar thermal, it's going to cost fossil fuel power generation much more for a range of reasons outlined in this thread and many others. The 2020 / 20% mandate, growing global demand, 2010 carbon cap and trade enforcement, but to name a few. Even fossil fuel companies are leveraging their resources into renewable energy development such as solar thermal energy. WorleyParsons, I and others clearly appreciate this, but it's evident you don't.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Solar plants in the real world are not immune from such sociatal influences.

Nothing is totally immune from all sorts of influences. This has clearly been demonstrated with fossil fuel power generation prices already rising aggressively from depleting resources obtained at traditionally affordable costs, against growing global demand for fossil fuels. This is just one of the key reasons for change to a greater renewable energy base. Climate Change is a societal influence and a key reason why the world is moving toward cleaner energy sources. This clearly demonstrates the weakness of relying solely on fossil fuels. Thus another mute point.

Originally Posted by Wobs

If it applies to all industries, it is anything but mute, and solar will not be immune. That's the point.

That is also a mute point because whatever hits solar energy in the face of rising global fossil fuel prices, carbon taxes, 2020 20% renewable mandates, is going to hit 100% fossil fuel power generation much harder. Fossil fuel power generation is set to get a whole lot more expensive in the coming years and this realisation is based on the well known reasons I have explained.

Originally Posted by Wobs

But also, this talk of "projections" holds a limited scope of accuracy. No-one knows for sure whether fossil fuels will increase as projected. Demand could well level out worldwide, or even dip, and capacity could increase, so all of these announcements seem to be based upon a single hypothesis. The time scales in question are far greater than your average economist would like to commit to a policy, given the type and sclae of investment we are talking about.

There are simply too many forces against fossil fuel power generation as already explained several times. There is no sign that demand will drop off in the long term. China's economy is expected to grow for another 20 years and even if it stopped growing tomorrow, the global mandate to tackle climate change and reduce carbon emissions means higher fossil fuel prices will result from the regulatory measures enforced by governments. The 2020 / 20% mandate and beyond and cap and trade are to be enforced by Climate Change imperative and government directives. You just don't get it. WorleyParsons, I and others clearly appreciate this, but it's evident you don't.

Originally Posted by Wobs

See comment above. Its not a mute point just because someone is saying something you want to hear.

Yes, your arguments simply don't stack up and that has nothing to do with you having an opinion of me or anyone else not wanting to hear your opinion. You just have not offered any substantive argument. Further more your arguments don't reflect reality in terms of the commitments being undertaken in the development of solar thermal energy globally and the government mandates for renewable energy targets and legislative frameworks being imposed to price carbon into the energy production equation and the global economic climate effecting demand for fossil fuels and forward projections of all.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Just incase you didn't pick up on me saying it many time before:
I'm not against solar thermal technology. I hope it expands as much as possible.

Yes and I say solar thermal power generation will expand greatly and not in the lack lustre way you have inferred. Solar thermal energy growth is expected to be very strong over the coming years. This strong growth is occurring now and has been shown on a yearly basis for several years. We are at an early growth phase, but it is still strong and to a large degree predictable for the several reasons I have outlined on several occasions.

Originally Posted by Wobs

I'm just saying that you are sweeping under the carpet, any problem.

You have offered no substantiation of any of your claims or purported problems of solar thermal energy, mainly I suspect because they are not problems that will stop the technology from being successfully implemented. Further more they don't stack up against the driving factors I have already explained on several occasions. i.e. the global imperative to tackle Climate Change, mandates, regulations, global demand and economic projections.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Show some evidence that you've really taken any notice of the issues I've raised. The prevailing view is that it is expensive. Are WorleyParsons going to say otherwise? Of course they are, and we know why - They have a vested interest in it being built.

Renewable energy was never going to initially be cheap. Only a fool would buy into that notion. However for the reasons I have explained several times, the environment is emerging to make it more competitive with fossil fuels. i.e. the global imperative to tackle Climate Change, mandates, regulations, global demand and economic projections. Solar thermal energy will be a significant player in this equation and in time its cost will fall and in some cases of solar thermal energy, it's already cheaper than fossil fuel power.

Originally Posted by Wobs

You have ignored every issue I've raised. Again, just saying you "ackowledge" something doesn't make that issue go away, or somehow become mute.

You have not substantiated in any meaningful or convincing way, any of the issues you have raised. You never will do this, because you can't, because your reasons simply don't stack up against the overwhelming reasons, that in spite of your perceived issues with solar thermal energy technology, by far out weigh such perceptions. The issues you have raised are simply not going to stop solar thermal energy being applied successfully.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Its not about "chamging the future", its about the picture you paint being wrong. The issues I've raised are indeed well known to developers, but clearly you still ignore them. We still don't have 20% solar, and we are unlikely to in our lifetime. Your 20% renewable represents are small proportion of the overall energy production of a country. Wind will still be a major player in this field in the medium to long term, and both wind and solar will probably only be required to have a capacity of 20%, not what is actually supplied to the grid.

Your remarks are pure unsubstantiated speculation as with your near entire argument. The Australian government has made it's vision clear. 2020 / 20% renewable energy much of which will be solar energy and wind energy of varying forms including significant solar thermal energy. WorleyParsons agree with this view. Your view does not reflect the view of many others involved in such proposals and developments who have government backing and increasingly favourable conditions to see the success of clean sustainable energy to help meet the mandates to help tackle Climate Change. I have little doubt that when we reach 20% renewables in Australia, we will aim even higher.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Still waiting for any evidence of you actually understanding what I've said.

You have not substantiated your case and thus there is nothing to prove there. You can keep going on about this side distraction, but it does not bolster your points in any way whatsoever. You have simply not offered a convincing explanation for your points raised. What's playing out in reality on several levels, government, industry, economic, etc... does not reflect the points you have made and in fact contradict the points you have presented as limiting factors having great significance. Any limiting factors you have raised wont likely have a great impact in the context of the dynamics that we are faced with in tackling Climate Change. i.e. the global imperative to tackle Climate Change, mandates, regulations, global demand and economic projections. WorleyParsons, I and others clearly appreciate this, but it's evident you don't.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Again, I'll say it:
I am not against this technology.
It is the technology's limitations that will limit its market penetration. So why are you so relectant to discuss it? You have not addressed the issues I've raised.

The matter has been and is being discussed. Everything is limited by a range of factors and that's been discussed. You have not raised any issues of substance that will stop solar thermal energy being successfully implemented. I have explained the reasons why and why solar thermal energy will grow strongly over the coming years.

Originally Posted by Wobs

When you say "Every technology has limitations. That does not stop their successful implementation. Solar thermal energy is no different", you are quite correct, so why you're relectance to discuss them? Just saying "Its got a great future" etc, is a sweeping statement, and does nothing to address the issue.

Because you have not presented a convincing case or issue that would stop solar thermal energy being successfully implemented. You have breezed over a few points where you think solar thermal energy will have issues. However if such issues are not going to change the main game, then I'm not going to spend time on them when my time can be better spent on more significant issues. There are no game changers.

Originally Posted by Wobs

So if they find that all the locations with the best solar resources are also the windiest, or have insufficient water in the area, or would cost too much to put in the infrastructure, who will you blame? Or will they build them anyway and to hell with the cost?

I don't doubt due diligence will be carried out as with any engineering project done professionally. Much research has already been done on climate conditions best suited to solar and wind energy. The data exists and they are not going to build where the data shows conditions that are not favourable. They are not fools. These groups are professionally trained engineers and scientists that understand what's at stake. Sure mistakes get made in every walk of life, before you start to claim the defence of bungling bureaucratic mismanagement, I may as well get in first. These people know how to build things.

Originally Posted by Wobs

If the environmental impact on the locations cited are significant, would you care? I've asked before, and you've not said, which is worrying. You seem to not care that the locations may have fragile habitats.

Open-ended question. Is Climate Change significant ? Where are your priorities ? No doubt a balance will be found, but it's clear that climate is a major issue as is carbon emissions. The fact is that we arn't always going to have the luxury to decide our fate based solely on localised issues. The bigger picture must be balanced with such matters. I will leave that to the experts in that field to deal with, however I very much doubt such matters will stop the strong growth of solar thermal energy because we have already negatively impacted ecologies around the world and much of that is due to the fossil fuel industry not being accountable. It's been said that we are at far greater risk from Climate impact than localised environmental issues bought about through renewable energy projects. Fossil fuel industry has caused far more damage than I suspect renewable energy will, but again I will leave that to the experts in their respective fields to prioritise as needed.

You're arguments continue to be unsubstantiated. The points you have fleetingly raised simply don't reconcile with government views, industry views, economic projections and straight forward reasoning. i.e. the global imperative to tackle Climate Change, 2020 / 20% renewable energy mandates, carbon cap and trade and carbon pricing regulations, global demand for fossil fuels and the price impacts of such and future economic projections and the implications all these factors will have on fossil fuel power generation relative to renewable energy power generation. As it stands, renewable energy stands to gain a competitive advantage over the coming years. It stands to reason that solar thermal energy will represent a significant part of that. WorleyParsons view is reflective of this reasoning and it's entirely reasonable for them too hold such a view.

Anyone can form a subjective opinion and speculate about what's a good idea and what's not and that in itself is a topic in its own right. However in terms of what's real and what's actually happening out there and observing this reality, there is no escaping the factors I have outlined. If governments change their views and further conclude that renewable energy mandates and carbon pricing are no longer required and global demand for energy plummets and Climate Change is not a concern, then the dynamics of the game will change. As it stands however, the current actions don't reflect such views. The very reason for demands for sustainable clean renewable energy, reflect the very reasons these issues are treated with such concern.